PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 9 10 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 4:58 PM on April 5, 2009 :
Does every number multiplied by a negative turn out to be negative?
The negative element causes all to be negative.



No, two negatives multiplied together are a positive.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:39 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:34 PM on April 5, 2009 :
all elements multiplied by a random element causes all to be random. You agree?


I took an entire course in grad school titled "Random Processes" and I don't remember that rule.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:47 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:34 PM on April 5, 2009 :
all elements multiplied by a random element causes all to be random. You agree?



I had a feeling that's what you were getting at, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions.

How about chemistry?  How about if you mix hydrogen gas with oxygen gas and apply a spark?  Which two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen to form water is a completely random process, wouldn't you say?  But while the combination of individual  hydrogen and oxygen molecules is a completely random process, the result of water and a release of energy is not a random process.  Its a completely predictable process, with hardly a random result.



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:20 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent answer to a moronic comment.

Undeserving.

gluteus, you're a disgrace to any cause you try to support.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:48 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now Wisp, be nice,  You have an advantage in being better educated.  :0)

Personally, I've learned a lot about evolution since beginning debating this topic a few years ago with a friend, who is a Creationist.  What I have learned since then has only solidified and confirmed my understanding that evolution is a fact.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:01 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I try... But hes's too... Is 'silly' soft enough?

At least he shows creationism taken to it's extreme.
It's ignorance, flawed logic, refusal to understand, to reason or to give answers, asking the same questions over and over again, projecting, copypasting, using logical fallacies, avoiding subjects...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:00 AM on April 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah!  He's driving you NUTS!  

You have my sympathy Wisp.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:04 AM on April 6, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:13 PM on April 5, 2009 :
How long are you prepared to wait?



You mean if I wait long enough, that meal will present itself to me?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:02 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 6:20 PM on April 5, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:34 PM on April 5, 2009 :
all elements multiplied by a random element causes all to be random. You agree?



I had a feeling that's what you were getting at, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions.

How about chemistry?  How about if you mix hydrogen gas with oxygen gas and apply a spark?  Which two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen to form water is a completely random process, wouldn't you say?  But while the combination of individual  hydrogen and oxygen molecules is a completely random process, the result of water and a release of energy is not a random process.  Its a completely predictable process, with hardly a random result.


But the bottomline is that anytime  2 H atoms combine with an O atom, you will always get water, that is not random.
I am rebelling that evolution is in the text books and goes unchallenged in the mainstream. There is no proof of it and it is more than open for debate.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:12 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the bottomline is
Woah! "bottomline"! Big word!
that anytime  2 H atoms combine with an O atom, you will always get water, that is not random.
You see, orion? He didn't even get how your example applies.
gluteus, it's exactly the same bottomline with Evolution.
I am rebelling that evolution is in the text books and goes unchallenged in the mainstream.
You mean "rebelling against", right?
There is no proof of it and it is more than open for debate.
Your lack of understanding of the abundant evidence is not a big problem.

If you could understand it, well, then it wouldn't be a smart idea.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:18 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ugh!  Wisp, I do indeed understand what you mean.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:55 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"But while the combination of individual  hydrogen and oxygen molecules is a completely random process, the result of water and a release of energy is not a random process.  Its a completely predictable process, with hardly a random result."
Did I misunderstand?
And your point?


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/6/2009 at 7:21 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:19 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's an unguided process, as is the formation of a snowflake, as is the formation of amino acids, sugars, acetaldehydes. . .


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:33 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did comment on the snowflake enigma some posts ago. Adding to that, yes a cut&paste job, I present:

"The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function.  Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels. "

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:08 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:19 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:08 PM on April 6, 2009 :
I did comment on the snowflake enigma some posts ago. Adding to that, yes a cut&paste job, I present:

"The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function.  Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels. "



Gluteus - there are exothermic reactions - reactions that give off a net amount of energy, and often occur spontaneously.  A simple example of an exothermic reaction is the one that I discribed above.  Another is the combination of iron with oxygen to form rust, giving off heat.

The opposite of an exothermic reaction is an endothermic reaction.  This is a reaction that requires an input of energy.  Photosynthesis in plants is an example of an endothermic reaction.  Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen.  

Nothing mysterious about any of this.  As Apoapsis and others have pointed out numerous times, the 2n law has nothing to do with preventing evolution and abiogenesis from occurring.



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:37 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Religious writers are familiar with the general process of photosynthesis but are unskilled in dealing with chemical thermodynamics. They claim that the second law not only says that it is impossible for more complex substances to be spontaneously formed from simpler materials, but also a non-spontaneous process like photosynthesis that produces complex substances requires the presence of an organism, such as a plant.

       Neither claim is true. As has been discussed adequately in a previous portion of this essay about the second law and evolution, "A watch must have … a watchmaker", the spontaneous formation of millions of far more complex compounds than their elements is energetically favored by the second law. This is true whether the new molecule is more or less complicated than its starting materials because the second law is concerned only with energy. All other requirements or consequences are not within the purview of the law.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:09 PM on April 6, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now an interesting question is - how did photosynthesis evolve?  This would be a very interesting question to research.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:02 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They claim that the second law not only says that it is impossible for more complex substances to be spontaneously formed from simpler materials


What like denying that water forms from H and O -I don't think so -so that would be a 'strawman' would it not .No religious writer ever claimed such a thing that I have ever seen. Can you give us an example, names, places?

A non- spontaneous process like photosynthesis requires the presence of biological machinary and the question is, did that biological machinary just fall into place by natural laws of attraction like water from H and O or was it coded for by genetic information? If coded for, where did the coded message come from. Without that coded message and consequent machinary, energy could not be harnessed the way it is in plants.

Energy is released when water is formed but chemical energy release cannot be the explanation for the machinary involved in photosynthesis.

the 2n law has nothing to do with preventing evolution and abiogenesis from occurring.


It may not prevent it but it certainly would not favour it. You need more than prevention to build up complexity  in nature. You need a genetic code coding for proteins and machinary that specifically causes energy to be converted into the energy rich bonds in plants.
Where does the micromachinary come from that causes ATP to be formed in massive quantities in your body everyday from ADP? Without that coded micromachinary allowing for the formation of our energy currency, biology could not have gotten off the ground.

Wisp to Gluteus
Your lack of understanding of the abundant evidence is not a big problem.

If you could understand it, well, then it wouldn't be a smart idea.


Do you imagine that your ad hominem nonsense elevates your status in this forum? All that you seem to specialize in, is rudeness and arrogance. Give it a break, it is getting really boring.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:45 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nonononono, Lester.

Tell us who designed the predators and parasites, or hush.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:51 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell us who designed the predators and parasites, or hush.


Apparently God designed the predators but not as predators. Everything was vegetarian to begin with.  As for parasites, they may have lost the ability to be independant in the general downhill trend that has been occuring due to 2LOT. Of course as with every historical event, we cannot do repeatable experimentation, so we have our historical account of what happened in the Bible and we surmise the missing pieces using a process of deduction.
As for evolutionists, they have had to make their entire story up.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:14 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Orion
Now an interesting question is - how did photosynthesis evolve?


Of course that would be assuming that evolution occurred or putting the cart before the horse.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:20 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:45 AM on April 7, 2009 :
What like denying that water forms from H and O -I don't think so -so that would be a 'strawman' would it not .No religious writer ever claimed such a thing that I have ever seen. Can you give us an example, names, places?


If I bothered to search through archives of internet discussions of the early 90's, I certainly could.  

But Creationism is evolving too.  Back then Walt Brown was still declaring that the Kuiper belt didn't exist.

And probably 90% of creationists accept microevolution, back then it was maybe 30%.

At this rate in another 20 years creationism as we know it won't exist.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:43 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
What like denying that water forms from H and O -I don't think so


Hey Lester, do you remember that you said this:

Demon said this:
Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not.


And then you said this:

Any process that has a random component in it is random by definition.


Then gluteus said this:
all elements multiplied by a random element causes all to be random. You agree?


Wisp, Apoapsis, and I all disagreed with the both of you.  I gave my example of hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water.  The combining of individual molecules in the reaction process is certainly random.  But the result of the formation of water and release of energy are not.  So this simple example debunks the statements that you and gluteus made about a random element makes the whole process random.

That is the context in which I gave my example.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:30 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, thanks, Lester. I admit that i didn't believe you'd give such a straightforward answer. I mean it. Thanks.
Apparently God designed the predators but not as predators.
Did He design a vegan cheetah? Did He design horns? Thorns? Claws? Armors? Killer instincts? Neurotoxic venom? What for?
Everything was vegetarian to begin with.
Did lions stalk their fruit? Did spiders and snakes inject venom into their berries? Don't you want to think it over?
As for parasites, they may have lost the ability to be independant in the general downhill trend that has been occuring due to 2LOT.
Lost the ability to not produce mind controlling chemicals?

Your "downhill" looks a lot like Evolution.

Can i lose my ability to not-speak Mandarin? I'm tired of it.

Of course as with every historical event, we cannot do repeatable experimentation, so we have our historical account of what happened in the Bible and we surmise the missing pieces using a process of deduction.
Except that you got nowhere. You can't devolve spiderwebs.
If spiders had web weaving abilities in the garden of Eden, for some obscure vegan reason, and they learned how to use them to hunt, that's new. And spiders aren't intelligent. They have a built in instinct.
I'm not sure what you creationists mean when you say "information", but this has to qualify.

You show this capricious whim that makes you say that if a crocodile takes a sunbath it proves God's intelligent design. He lovingly gave it that instinct.
But if the same croc lurks underwater, jumps from it, catches it's prey and takes it underwater to drawn it, it proves devolution.

Every animal (Can i be wrong about this? I doubt it.) has mechanisms for attack or defense.
Even sight has this function.
Even skin.
Even multicellularity.

If you can "devolve" these things, you can devolve into anything.

Every spider has venom. So in your view they must have devolved from another thing.

Crocodiles should have been VERY different in the garden of Eden (for every inch of it speaks of attack and or defense).

So suddenly the lack of transitionals is your problem.

Where are the abundant transitionals we should expect from vegans to carnivores?

Will you be so naive as to imply that they looked the same?

What did the tapeworm use to do  for a living?

And where's the evidence for that superfast "devolutionary" rate that transformed them into what we see today?

Supposedly humans already ate animals in the garden of Eden.
How come we suck at it now?
Devolution.
How come lions are so good at it?
Devolution.
Who made the snake's successful design?
Goddidit.
How did the legless lizard get the same design?
Devolution.
Where's your logic?
Devolution.

As for evolutionists, they have had to make their entire story up.
Our modern made up story has proven to be highly accurate. Your ancient made up story has not.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:34 AM on April 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:20 AM on April 7, 2009 :
Orion
Now an interesting question is - how did photosynthesis evolve?


Of course that would be assuming that evolution occurred or putting the cart before the horse.


Lester - I'm confident that photosynthesis did evolve.  It began as a simpler process than what we see in plants today, I'm sure.  But rest assured, life found a way - without the assistance of a divine entity.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:04 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for parasites, they may have lost the ability to be independant in the general downhill trend that has been occuring due to 2LOT.
There's nothing downhill about eating flesh (and i say it as a vegetarian).

Every organism needs some sort of energy intake. So no organism is "independant".

Besides if you limit your explanation to "lost something" that implies that they already had what it takes to predate and parasite.
And perhaps saying that is your only escape from the contradictory implications of your simplistic explanation.

Perhaps you could say that animals lived in harmony but they would eat carrion, and bacteria would rot dead things (otherwise the garden would have been covered with perennial corpses).

That could explain a couple of things, but just a couple.
You can't explain the thousands of different killing techniques we see in nature.

To us it's pretty easy.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:38 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent points Wisp.

Did lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) have different kinds of teeth when they were vegatarians?  Teeth often are a good indicator of what kinds of food animals eat.  

Take the Komodo dragon, it has sharp, backward pointing, serrated teeth.  These teeth (and the saliva) harbor toxic bacteria that will cause a leathal infection if a prey animal is bitten.  So the dragon doesn't actually kill its prey, it will soon die of infection afterwards if bitten.  

The Komodo is definitely not a plant eater!  

T-Rex was much the same way, I might add.  Sharp dagger-like teeth that were serrated, and probably harbored leathal bacteria that caused fatal infection to any prey that got away.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:54 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 5:54 PM on April 7, 2009 :
T-Rex was much the same way, I might add.  Sharp dagger-like teeth that were serrated, and probably harbored leathal bacteria that caused fatal infection to any prey that got away.


It's not really a problem.  Since T-Rex coprolites have been found to contain bone fragments of juvenile plant eating dinosaurs, they are obviously post-Fall.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:06 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:06 PM on April 7, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 5:54 PM on April 7, 2009 :
T-Rex was much the same way, I might add.  Sharp dagger-like teeth that were serrated, and probably harbored leathal bacteria that caused fatal infection to any prey that got away.


It's not really a problem.  Since T-Rex coprolites have been found to contain bone fragments of juvenile plant eating dinosaurs, they are obviously post-Fall.



Oh!  I see.

Actually, I have to confess, I'm very confused about what supposedly happened, and how all these animals got the way they are.  

Post Fall - you mean after God evicted Adam & Eve from Eden for eating the forbidden fruit, even though it was really the fault of that dirty rotten serpent?  To tell you the truth, I sort of liked the serpent.  He made much more sense than God did.

I've got to wonder how dinosaurs fit into the picture.  I suppose the Creationist Museum explains it all very nicely.  But I'll pass on it - you'll never see me inside that place.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:19 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you evolutionists see any shortcomings with your theory, have any doubts at all or are you 100% sure through and through?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:34 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:34 PM on April 7, 2009 :
Do you evolutionists see any shortcomings with your theory, have any doubts at all or are you 100% sure through and through?



gluteus - evolution is a fact.  No doubt about it in my mind.  There is so much supporting evidence for it from multiple fields of science.  TOE will be tweaked and adjusted as research continues.  But it is without doubt the foundation for the biological sciences.  

However, you probably can't really appreciate the staggering beauty of it unless you do some grunt work and do some serious  reading - from credible sources, I hasten to say.  You won't learn anything about it from reading Creationist blogs.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:17 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:34 PM on April 7, 2009 :
Do you evolutionists see any shortcomings with your theory, have any doubts at all or are you 100% sure through and through?


In science, nothing is 100% certain.  Am I confident that further clarifications of evolutionary theory will be made as new discoveries are made? Yes.  Do I think there will be huge changes to it? No.  

That's not true of gravity, I think the theory of gravity could be overturned any day.

If you want to argue about evolution, you should argue against what it really is, rather than the cartoon version that you apparently think it is.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:32 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you evolutionists see any shortcomings with your theory, have any doubts at all or are you 100% sure through and through?
Sure of what?

Of the fact of Evolution?

No, i'm not.

There's a slight chance that a god (if it does anything, it needs something, if it needs something, it's not infinite, if it's not infinite, it's not the God but a god) might be the creator of life the way we see it.
If that's the case he obviously made it look like Evolution took place, and he's obviously smart enough to pull it out, so we'd never find the truth out.

The chances of us being inside a Matrix are actually a whole lot higher.

But then the Matrix obiously simulated Evolution, so its factuality is, in all practical sense (which is the actual sense of scientific facts), flawless.

orion:
I also like the serpent. Actually i used to love the creation story.

Creationists kinda ruined it for me. Making me point out inconsistencies to a literallity that the cool writers never intended.

Fortunately there are no Kafkian or Shakespearian fundamentalists.

Thank God!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:57 AM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:12 PM on April 6, 2009 :

But the bottomline is that anytime  2 H atoms combine with an O atom, you will always get water, that is not random.

That is indeed what was just stated.  It is not random because of the physical/chemical propterties of the atoms.
But as was stated, WHICH atoms of H and O combine IS random - ANY atoms of O can combine with ANY atoms of H.

I am rebelling that evolution is in the text books and goes unchallenged in the mainstream. There is no proof of it and it is more than open for debate.

No, there is no proof.  There is no proof that they sky is blue, either.  But the evidence indicates it is.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:15 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm a bit late to the party, but I have some time to kill and I thought I'd take a stab at a few of the claims made in this post.

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:27 PM on February 17, 2009 :
Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye,


Well, that didn't take long.
No evolutinist has ever iundicated that the eye popped into existence all at once 'by chance.'  You are constructing a rather hackneyed strawman argument.
But maybe it will get better.
there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over a thousand different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.

Of note, there are in fact many different ways to get the same functions for most if not all of them.  Look at the protein cytochrome C for example - human cytC differs in amino acid composition by ~50% compared ot that of a tuna.  Yet they do the exact same job.
So there is no one sequence that must be derived by chance all at once, even if that were how evolution posited it to have occurred.

Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids.


Which is to say that proetins are amino acid polymers.

There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly.

See my last entry.


It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.

Also see above.


Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph.


How does an amino acid sequence "spell out" information?



We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.

OK, except that this has become an exercise in tortured illogic and misapplied analogies.


Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance.

I'm done.

Evolution is 'chance' coupled with selection of some sort, which is the antithesis of 'chance.'

You should understand what it is you are arguing against BEFORE setting up such an absurd scenario that you apparently think hasmerit.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:23 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:34 PM on April 7, 2009 :
Do you evolutionists see any shortcomings with your theory, have any doubts at all or are you 100% sure through and through?


No theory - not one - is 100% certain.  If, when you write 'shortcomings', you mean unanswered questions and the like, then certainkly there are 'shortcomongs' as there are in any theory.
That evolution occurred is a near certainty, for that is what the evidence indicates.  The precise timing and mechanisms involved are open for discussion and debate - how much influence environment has, whether neutral theory is the default mode of evolution, etc.

Do I think that, given these 'shortcomings', evolution as a concept or even as a theory will be 'overturned' at some point?  Highly unlikely.  A 'new' theory will have to not only be substantially different than evolution in order to supplant it, but it will also have fit with the observed evidence and explain it BETTER than evolution does.  Otherwise, there would be no reason to replace evolution.

As it stands now, creation/ID rest entirely on arguments against perceived weaknesses in evolution.  They offer NOTHING by way of real explanation for anything, and merely co-opt evolution when convenient.  
If evolution is ever replaced, it will almost certainly NOT be by YEC or OEC or ID, that much I am quite certain of.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:31 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - you have made some excellent observations, and your explanations are clearly stated and expertly directed to the point.  Thank you!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:45 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed.

It's a pleasure to read you.

By the way, don't expect understanding from gluteus.
If any of his phrases seem to show traces of intelligence, it's copypasta.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:55 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:23 PM on April 8, 2009 :


Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance.
I'm done.

Evolution is 'chance' coupled with selection of some sort, which is the antithesis of 'chance.'

You should understand what it is you are arguing against BEFORE setting up such an absurd scenario that you apparently think hasmerit.


“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently.  They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction.  They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms,

As for Natural selection...
“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]

Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ...  Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist);






(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/8/2009 at 6:20 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:18 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoty guy!

Can't you see how pathetic that is? Ipse dixit ("Himself said") is the name of this particularily pathetic logical fallacy.

Give us facts, not quotes.

I'll answer just one:
“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently.  They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction.  They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms,
Indeed. That's all true. And it's not a problem.

Yes! Mutations are random! They have no direction (which is already implied in "random"). Random, disordered, and without direction. Yes, yes, yes! That's what "random" means!

Nobody will tell you otherwise (except maybe for the guy who wrote X-Men).

The second and third quotes are just a matter of words.

That's as far as creation science goes. Reading scientific material and taking words out of context.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:18 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus, you don't understand Evolution. Can't and won't.

You don't understand your own copypasta, nor our replies. You don't even want to understand.

Think it over. Search your feelings.

What do you want?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:26 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand those quotes and what I am getting at is the sheer improbability that random mutations lead to intricate and complex ordered systems.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:49 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:49 PM on April 8, 2009 :
I understand those quotes and what I am getting at is the sheer improbability that random mutations lead to intricate and complex ordered systems.




gluteus - you're ignoring one important ingredient - natural selection.  In a nutshell, nature selects those mutations that are favorable in some way.  Mutations that are unfavorable don't get passed along as readily.

Natural Selection works as a feedback process.  What works to the benefit of the organism has a better chance to be passed along.  Future mutations that may amplify (build on to) the benefit also have a better chance of being passed along.  I can certainly see the eye evolving in this manner.  Over time it looks like the evolutionary process is actually guided to some goal, such as the development of the eye.  Its not guided by an intelligence, its guided by the feedback process of Natural Selection.  

Now I'm not a biologist.  I'm sure others can explain it better.  But that's the way I understand it.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:29 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would you rather use the whole quote?

How do you feel about starting a quote in the middle of a sentence and capitalizing it?

"Van Valen's theory [the Red Queen hypothesis] is that the environment is constantly decaying with respect to existing organism, so that natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it. Evidence from the Red Queen hypothesis comes from an examination of extinction rates in a large number of evolutionary lines. If natural selection were actually improving the fit of organisms to their environments, then we might expect the probability that a species will become extinct in the next time period to be less for species that have already been in existence for a long time, since the long-lived species are presumably the ones that have been improved by natural selection. The data show, however, that the probability of extinction of a species appears to be a constant, characteristic of the group to which it belongs but independent of whether that species has been in existence for a long time or a short one. In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chance of survival but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment…There is no way to explain and predict such evolutionary adaptations unless a priori niches can be described on the basis of some physical principles before organisms come to occupy them."

Richard C. Lewontin
"Adaptation"
Scientific American
Vol. 239, No. 3
Sept. 1978
Page 215



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:33 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you did understand them, then you'd be dishonest.

You'd understand why the first quote (the most clear and less misq oted) doesn't matter.
I understand those quotes and what I am getting at is the sheer improbability that random mutations lead to intricate and complex ordered systems.
Fine. Useless point given. Mutations don't lead to that. Simply because they don't lead at all.

Who said that mutations lead?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:59 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 6:18 PM on April 8, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 2:23 PM on April 8, 2009 :
Evolution is 'chance' coupled with selection of some sort, which is the antithesis of 'chance.'

You should understand what it is you are arguing against BEFORE setting up such an absurd scenario that you apparently think hasmerit.


“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently.  They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction.  They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms,


I've read Grasse's book.  I found it bombastic, immature, and riddled with self-promotion and unsupported assertions.  Like the one you just copy and pasted.
Grasse also fel tthat DNA was "irrelevant" to evolution, and that it was the fossils/bones that mattered.  You'll forgive me then for not putting much stock in the ravings of a megalomaniac published 30 years ago as a response to something I wrote.
I cannot tell what it was you presented that in response to.

You apparently missed that your Grasse quote does not even mentioned selection, he was rambling on about mutations.

So, like I said - learn about it before pontificating, especially pontificating via quote.

I must tell you - I've been at this for more than 10 years.  I've read most fo the books and articles you folks quote from, and have also read and/or own many of the primary source books and articles your sources mine from.

I think you will find, therefore, that I am not swayed or impressed or intimidated by quotes, and I have found that those that argue via quote do so because they are too ignorant to come up with anything on their own.


As for Natural selection...
“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]


Another 30+ year old quote, in which a series of "if" statements are employed rhetorically to set up a situation that the author can then address.
I would hope that this evolutionist would have understood that most evolutionary change does NOT necessarily occur during speciation events, and that such events are far from random.  Apparently not, but it is hard to tell without the context, isn't it?
But let me guess - you got that from the TrueOrigins quote mine?
It is interesting - I googled that citation as you wrote it, and you'll never guess what came up - ALL creationist and/or right-wing sites.  What a coincidence.


Oh - and by the way - the citation is incorrect.  It is:

PNAS February 1, 1975 vol. 72 no. 2 646-650


Tell me - do you people purposely distort your citations to make the original harder to track down, or is your 'scholarship' so shoddy as to be untrustworthy?

Here is the abstract:

Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution. Evolutionary change tends to be concentrated within speciation events. The direction of transpecific evolution is determined by the process of species selection, which is analogous to natural selection but acts upon species within higher taxa rather than upon individuals within populations. Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species. Rates of speciation can be estimated for living taxa by means of the equation for exponential increase, and are clearly higher for mammals than for bivalve mollusks.

So, your little quote, even if accurate, was intended to support Stanley's thesis on when most evolutionary change took place, not to indicate whether or not selection is not random.


Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ...  Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist)


You should at least credit the creationist website you stole this from.

Of course, that does not invalidate what I wrote in any way.

You are just quote bluffing.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:21 AM on April 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the welcome, by the way.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:26 AM on April 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

those that argue via quote do so because they are too ignorant to come up with anything on their own.


Aah, you mean they may even be too ignorant to understand what they are quoting? Surely anything they have to say personally will then be even stupider?


So, like I said - learn about it before pontificating, especially pontificating via quote.


So Gluteus, looks like every exit is blocked here -no pontificating and no quote pontificating either. Guess it's going to have to be some original research here.
It's tough doing battle with ego, isn't it?  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:13 AM on April 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
gluteus - you're ignoring one important ingredient - natural selection.  In a nutshell, nature selects those mutations that are favorable in some way.  Mutations that are unfavorable don't get passed along as readily.


There's only one problem orion and that is that you're assuming that a single mutation may somehow be joined by many more that will join together to cause some sort of coordinated effect. Like making a liver slowly where there was none. Obviously evolutionists has to assume that those sorts of effects are possible but they do that through pure speculation, they have to or they would have nothing to believe in. We don't see it that way.We see it more like making spelling mistakes in an original perfect document. More and more spelling mistakes over many generations is unlikely to make a better story than the original intelligently designed one. Even selection of the best mistakes is only holding the forthcoming disaster in check for a limited period of time. In fact loooking at it this way is a far better explanation for the current mutational load than imagining that 'good' mutations are happening frequently enough to craft every sort of invertebrate, fish, reptile, insect and mammal including man from that incredibly unlikely original self organizing relative of us all, that unicellular masterpiece that we speculate about endlessly when discussing origins sans creative intelligence.

So yes, NS may select mutations that are positive in some way or it may just act as a quality controller ignoring those that are not too damaging to the final product.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:41 AM on April 9, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 9 10 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.